In the United States v. Klumpp case of 1897, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving customs duties. The defendant, George A. Klumpp, was an importer who had brought goods into the country and declared them as "silk ribbons" to avoid paying higher import taxes that were applicable for "velvet ribbons". The government argued that these imported items should have been classified as velvet ribbons which attracted a higher duty rate than silk ribbons under existing tariff laws. However, Klumpp contended that his classification was correct based on their texture and appearance despite being made from both silk and cotton materials. The court held in favor of the United States Government stating that although there might be some ambiguity in defining what constitutes 'velvet', it is clear from evidence presented during trial proceedings that these imported goods are commonly known as velvet in commercial parlance even though they contain both silk and cotton materials. Therefore, since tariff classifications are determined by common commercial understanding rather than scientific or technical definitions; it concluded that these imports should indeed be classified as 'velvets' subjecting them to higher import duties.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Klumpp case argued that the defendant, a German national residing in America, should not be extradited to Germany for crimes committed there because he had already been tried and acquitted of those same charges in an American court. The justice opined that this constituted double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the U.S Constitution's Fifth Amendment. They contended that extradition would violate Klumpp’s constitutional rights and undermine principles of fairness and justice fundamental to American law. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent where individuals could potentially face multiple prosecutions for the same crime across different jurisdictions.